Devs, you have the look of a skeleton crew, stretched to the limit, over-extended and probably burnt out because of it as explained by Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/crunch-time-why-game-developers-work-such-insane-hours-1704744577 EA adopted this child, but doesn't seem to want to take responsibility for it. If the crew isn't big enough then EA needs to do something about it. Nobody wants to hear that a huge company like that can't afford it. That should have occurred to them before acquiring Bioware, as should the personnel necessary to keep this thing running. So I'm wondering if people in positions of power over there are actually making the effort to get through to them. I mean, how long can this go on? That month off for January didn't seem to help much. Didn't really address the problem, did it? Isn't this what Alex Tremblay was referring to That was last year, and the struggle seems to be getting worse, not better, as evidenced by the problems with Chapters 10 and 11. This thing barely staying afloat. Alex also said: Would it help if SWTOR players buried EA help in emails, etc. demanding that they do something? Are the bosses at Bioware either unable or unwilling to confront their bosses? Is EA really going to let this thing wither until it's time to cancel it? Somebody, some how, some way's got to get through to them. Is it you, us or both? You want the game to be better, and so do we. So who exactly over there is that doesn't seem to care? And how do we get through to them?

In retrospect, wasn't this always destined to be an MMO for primarily for RPers much like LOTRO? All the emphasis on story and voice acting, meanwhile PvP broken from the start, raids limited. Shouldn't we have expected this? As a "story player", it's fine with me. For people looking for PvP or raiding, there's quite simply better games for that, and this one will probably never satisfy. If they were going to make those aspects of the game strong, wouldn't they have done it by now, especially with as much clamor as there as has been recently for endgame content.? Bioware is doing what it does best, storytelling. The other parts, they just don't see to know what to do about.

I get your points. Lucas did use more finesse than the KOTOR writers did. However he also had his own plot holes because of it. A whole a Jedi council on Coruscant, and the whole time there's a powerful sith lord right next door, and they never figure it out. That whole "difficult to see, the Dark Side is" kind of ridiculous. It would have been made more sense for Palpatine to be managing things from afar. In some ways Lucas' writing is better. I thought he handled the whole Palpatine intrigue well, playing both sides, though in other ways he's not so good. His dialogue is right down there with Ed Wood at times. As for Traya. I was never quite sure if she was supposed to be able to actually bring out about the death of the force, or if she just thought she could. Chris Avellone should have probably leaned more towards the latter. Insanity is always a good story, and what self-respecting sith lord hasn't lost their mind if they do it long enough?

The various EU writers by necessity have had to expand on Lucas' original writings. A lot of it is really creative and well done. But leaving aside all canon vs. non-canon questions, I couldn't help thinking they'd went way over the top with some of their ideas. Referencing Kotor 2 and Drew Karpyshyn's Revan novel, I was considering 3 incidents in particular: 1. Traya's trying to kill the Force thing. 2. What Nihilus did at Katarr. 3. What the Emperor did at Nathema. I wanted to know what the crowd thinks. Do people think that the writers went overboard with these ideas, and whether yay or nay, was it necessary to go this far to make the stories work? For the record I loved Kotor 2 even with all the issues it had, Traya is one of my favorite NPCs of all time, and I do appreciate Drew's writing.

Nowhere did I try and tell people how they should RP or play the game, but this paragraph is fair enough. The question was presented maybe not as tactfully as it could have been, but I still haven't got a real answer yet either. Me personally, I thought it was far more amusing to spurn Kaliyo, watch her be surprised then later on call me a "piece of cowardly filth" than it was having Ensign Temple explain to me that I need to choose between here and Kaliyo in a previous run-through. So that previous toon successfully gets together with Temple. And?? And then what? Nothing? Is it going anywhere? Does it make her better at combat or crafting? Aside from what I think of it in general, I don't see the point. I had Kaliyo super upset with me, probably couldn't have gotten her any angrier. But she still comes along on the missions, and still does her job whether she loves me or hates me. But for those who enjoy it, you have that moment of acceptance, and then what do you do? Do people then take their NPCs to the bar and imagine themselves having conversations with character? With the legacy system, all of your toons become stronger by being "connected". If there's really a stronger bond with a certain NPC, why is there no tangible effect to go along with that? Shouldn't there be a special status fo go along with that to reflect it? Why does "affection" only affect crafting? It just seems very shallow, and thus without a point to me.

Just 2 more? Damn. I didn't even know we were graded on posts, especially when you're just asking a question. So hornet's nest kicked over, I guess. People kind of touchy about this, aren't they? 1) What's weird about rping with nobody, and instead pretending with pixels and submissive dialogue put in just so you can "be in love"? Honestly I thought it was obvious. Especially when there's no real RPing going on and it's simply a matter of clicking the flirt options in dialogue enough time to where they finally say, "Gimme a hell yeah!" No, I don't see any romance in that. I see a sop thrown to players, an easy out, kind of like Julia Roberts telling Richard Gere she's a sure thing. Doesn't romance come from what we call actually "winning" somebody over who isn't just throwing themselves at you, and the deep connection that follows having leapt over that hurdle? A connection which does not exist with an NPC who only talks to you in cantinas or on the ship, and is prone to discuss what they want to. It's not like you're walking down the beach holding hands or anything. Really this is akin to Barkley getting "romantic" with a hologram of Deanna Troi. 2) Ah, going on the offensive. I always respect that. Well done. My mindset, as it pertains to the question is this. Romance a fine thing, but I prefer it with real people. In that spirit, if I'm Bioware, I scrap the cheesy NPC dialogue and instead make it more possible with the living/ make the game more RP friendly. Maybe a "single's night" in the fleet cantina or on Nar Shaddaa. Make chairs that the toons can actually sit in, more drinks that can be bought with a myriad of effects, possibly even combine emotes to be done in sync with the effects. Encourage players who value romance in the their RP to do it with others in a safe manner where people can be assured they won't be harassed, and if they are, the offenders punished harshly. Since we have no player housing, more decorations or something on the ships to make the mood more appropriate. Music, flowers, boxes of chocolates, whatever. Maybe around Valentine's day, optional romance-based missions that further encourage interaction between players wanting to RP inline with their social points system. Etc. People keep saying this is about RP, and for those who actually do it with other players, good for you. But if you're sitting their fantasizing about an NPC, yeah, that's weird. That's not romantic. And feel free to save the points for those that value if them, if such exist.

Just going to ask the obvious question because I've never understood it. I've heard a bunch about "immersion" and depth to the story, but am I the only one who finds it all creepy? I can even see two people meeting online in the game and going on to get married or whatever, but that's two real people. Romancing an NPC? I'm sorry, but there is something very weird about that. If it's a loneliness issue, it's time to get out of the house. "Immersion" might fly more if the story was more adaptable such as the KOTORs, but it's not. It's scripted, and you pretty much follow it as it's laid out. Sure, there's light and dark dialogue options, but the story lines for the classes end the same way no matter what. Granted I've never understood people reading romance novels either because that's something you ought to be finding in the real world not in fiction, but in a video game where there are actual live people you can meet, and which is centered around killing and destroying things, it makes even less sense. What exactly is it people take away from scoring with their NPC?

lol All that, and all I wanted to know was how Kotor was guilty of "lore-jacking". As this discussion is largely moot anyway, the anti-Revan people having beaten this topic over the head. See, in LOTRO, I understood why people were so incredibly severe about "lore" it being based on a the works of a great writer at least (which Lucas is not and never would have been. IF there'd ever been a 3 Stooges game, would there be 3 Stooges lore). But I don't understand it in this game which is based first off a comic book series (do people really take those seriously), and then off 2 games LOOSELY based on that series, but all of it owned by the the same copyright holder and ostensibly blessed by The Lucas and now Disney. Isn't "lore" what they say it is? Honest questions here. I hope this doesn't constitute thread-jacking.

Elaborate. Exactly how is it lore-jacking? Revan should be laid to the rest, but the existence of the Revanites does make for fascinating possibilities. Particularly if it consists of a different breed of force users wherein not everything is black and white, that there is plenty of room for grey.